MP18-08 IRRIGATION PRACTICE PATTERNS DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY: RESULTS OF A WORLDWIDE SURVEY
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
You have accessJournal of UrologyStone Disease: Surgical Therapy II (MP18)1 Sep 2021MP18-08 IRRIGATION PRACTICE PATTERNS DURING FLEXIBLE URETEROSCOPY: RESULTS OF A WORLDWIDE SURVEY Jamsheed Bahaee, Jeffrey Plott, and Khurshid R. Ghani Jamsheed BahaeeJamsheed Bahaee More articles by this author , Jeffrey PlottJeffrey Plott More articles by this author , and Khurshid R. GhaniKhurshid R. Ghani More articles by this author View All Author Informationhttps://doi.org/10.1097/JU.0000000000002003.08AboutPDF ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload CitationsTrack CitationsPermissionsReprints ShareFacebookLinked InTwitterEmail Abstract INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVE: Flexible ureteroscopy (fURS) has emerged as the primary modality for the treatment of renal stones in North America. Irrigation methods and parameters during fURS may impact intrarenal pressure and patient safety, yet there is limited data on practice patterns for irrigation. We assessed this across surgeons in different regions of the world through an online survey. METHODS: An anonymous online questionnaire on URS practice patterns was sent to Endourology Society members in January 2021. Responses were collected through QualtricsXM over a 1-month period. The study was reported according to the Checklist for Reporting Results of Internet E-Surveys (CHERRIES). Surgeons were from the following regions: North America (US and Canada), Latin America, Europe, Asia, Africa, and Oceania. RESULTS: Questionnaires were answered by 208 surgeons (response rate 14%). U.S and Canadian surgeons accounted for 36% of all respondents, 29% from Europe, 18% from Asia, 14% from Latin America, 1% from Africa, and 1% from Oceania. fURS was routinely performed by all respondents with 54% performing >101 cases/year. In North America the most common irrigation method was the pressurized saline bag using a manual inflatable cuff (55%) (Table). In Europe, the most common method was the saline bag (gravity) with a bulb or syringe injection system (45%). Automated systems were most common in Asia (30%). For pressures used during URS, the majority of respondents used 75-150 mmHg (Figure). The clinical scenario which had the greatest issue with adequate irrigation during URS was biopsy of urothelial tumor. CONCLUSIONS: In this survey, we found that irrigation practices during fURS differ across the world. North American surgeons primarily used a pressurized saline bag, in contrast to European surgeons who preferred a saline bag with a handheld bulb/syringe system. Overall, automated irrigation systems were not commonly used. Source of Funding: None © 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.FiguresReferencesRelatedDetails Volume 206Issue Supplement 3September 2021Page: e320-e321 Advertisement Copyright & Permissions© 2021 by American Urological Association Education and Research, Inc.MetricsAuthor Information Jamsheed Bahaee More articles by this author Jeffrey Plott More articles by this author Khurshid R. Ghani More articles by this author Expand All Advertisement Loading ...
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier
Prédiction machine sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.
Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,002 | 0,005 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,002 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,001 |
| Science ouverte | 0,000 | 0,001 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,001 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,002 | 0,001 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découleClassification
machine, non validéePrédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.
Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».